Federalism is treated across The Bob Zadek Show as the American system’s core structural principle: the devolution of authority to the lowest practical level, with the national government holding only limited powers. Guests and host alike describe it as a safeguard of freedom and a framework for experimentation among co-equal governments, while also noting that its invocation is often selective.
The principle and its Brandeisian framing
Bob Zadek grounds the concept in Justice Brandeis, whom he quotes as saying, “A state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Zadek calls the states “50 laboratories of democracy” and identifies the arrangement as “the core principle of federalism,” with 50 states co-equal in many ways with the federal government. He contrasts this with a single national government, arguing that moving to a different country is a far more drastic decision than moving between states, and concludes, “God bless federalism. It helps us learn what works and what doesn’t work.” Where is Everyone Going? (2013)
Clint Bolick, in a separate episode, calls federalism “one of the most important innovations of the American system of government” and “one of the important safeguards of our freedom.” He describes the idea as devolving authority to the very lowest level possible, beginning with the individual and extending through family, community, local government, and state government, with the national government “being a government of very, very limited powers to do only those things that cannot be done locally.” Bolick warns that devolution does not end the prospect for tyranny, since local governments have greater impact on day-to-day life and are more susceptible to special-interest influence; his book embraces federalism while urging a watchful eye on the government closest to home. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Zadek offers his own gloss on that episode: power starts with the individual, moves upstream to family, town, state, and Washington only for practicality, and federalism reminds people to get it back down where it belongs. Bolick agrees that all power resides in the people and that the states ceded only a very limited amount of power to the national government, adding that from the standpoint of 2018 rather than 1787 that is a far-off description from where things are today. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Situational federalism
In the same episode, Zadek argues that federalism in public discourse has become “simply a rationalization to support a policy you wish,” with conservatives embracing it to take power from Washington and abandoning it when they want power moved to Washington. He cites the minimum wage as an example where opponents invoke federalism against a national wage, and abortion as an example where conservatives want national criminalization—“the opposite of federalism.” Bolick agrees and names the phenomenon “situational federalism,” saying that “so long as federalism is used to expand freedom,” it should be supported in both blue and red states, and warning that federalism will not survive unless there is agreement that certain things states ought to be able to do free from national interference. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Federalism as marketplace: tax migration
Zadek applies the principle to tax policy, describing California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois as having punitive tax policies and more of a welfare state than other states, and saying he likes that taxpayers have a choice—voting with their feet by staying or leaving. He frames the states as a marketplace where theories get tested, noting that California’s high taxes are not enough to chase him out but are enough to chase others out. Where is Everyone Going? (2013)
Federalism at the city level
Zadek asks Dr. Mark Lutter whether charter cities and free cities are a reaffirmation of federalism at the city level rather than the state level—try an idea, see if it works, and let it spread. Lutter agrees that is one interpretation, noting that some policies such as national defense are more efficient at the national level while others are better done locally because they may be more responsive to citizens’ needs. He identifies Africa and parts of Asia as the most exciting area for charter cities because of rapid urbanization, and cites the World Bank Doing Business Index: the highest-ranked sub-Saharan African country ranks about 50, so a charter city ranking 40 would become a magnet for entrepreneurial people and change the dialogue toward economic liberalization. The End of Nation-States? (2018)
Federalism and the courts
In a later episode, Zadek asks whether states are gaining confidence in shrugging aside federal attempts to undo federalism. William Ruger responds that federalism has been declining since almost the very beginning, partly because of the notion that once the Supreme Court has spoken, states have to line up—cutting both ways, as with Heller and the recent Supreme Court case on New York gun laws, which restricts states in a pro-liberty direction. He cites Obamacare as a case where states were experimenting with different healthcare regimes and the federal government federalized many aspects in a way negative for liberty and the economy. Ruger argues there may be a federal role in protecting fundamental rights but questions how extensive it should be, and says that if the federal government is to take something on, the Constitution specifies amendment—hard by design. He calls the Commerce Clause abused to give “a veneer of constitutionalism” to actions fundamentally against the Constitution, and says he would like states to push back more, citing marijuana as an area where state and local authorities should not prioritize enforcement relative to personal and property crimes. Ranking Freedom in the 50 States (2022)
Jason Sorens adds that when Congress federalizes a policy, it decreases freedom—Obamacare being the biggest example, along with GMO labeling and others where Congress imposed a nationwide regime and preempted state laws. When courts federalize something, he says, it tends to increase freedom, especially personal freedom, citing Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell. Sorens concludes that a constitutional regime promoting freedom requires an engaged judiciary upholding constitutional limits at all levels in the interest of individual rights, plus a Congress and executive held in check. Ranking Freedom in the 50 States (2022)
Federalism as empirical governance
Casey Mulligan, asked whether the President has a governing philosophy, pushes back on the term “philosophy,” saying he would not call him an ideologue and describing him as more empirical—seeing patterns that work and reapplying them. Mulligan says the idea of federalism, that things may be better handled at a local level where information and incentives are better, could be arrived at philosophically but was arrived at practically, and that the President has grown increasingly attracted to that approach. He recounts advising people heading into Oval Office arguments to give their position a federalism angle, and cites a battle over zoning regulations in suburbs in which the President wiped out agency regulations that had been in place since the Obama administration. You’re Hired! Chief Economic Adviser to Trump on What It’s Really Like to Work in the White House (2020)
Across episodes: from principle to scorekeeping
The excerpts show development in how federalism is argued. In 2013, Zadek presents it as a settled Brandeisian principle and a marketplace of tax competition. In 2018, Bolick supplies the skeptical turn, naming “situational federalism” and warning that federalism survives only if it is applied consistently to expand freedom. By 2022, the question has become empirical and quantitative: Ruger and Sorens debate whether Congress or the courts federalize in a freedom-increasing direction, and Sorens reports 20 years of data showing state-level freedom declining overall when federal policies are included but increasing when they are excluded. The 2020 Mulligan episode adds a different register—federalism as a practical argument that worked in internal White House debates rather than as a constitutional doctrine.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the holding or amendment basis of any case beyond the names Heller, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell, nor do they identify the New York gun case by name. They do not give the founding date of the Buckeye Institute, Robert Alt’s field, or the content of the Janus v. AFSCME discussion beyond its listing as a topic. The 2017 Alt episode excerpt is a summary fragment and supplies no substantive statements to attribute.